With the technology of "Color Copiers" a stamped plan isn't to far of a stretch. NJ still requires an embossed only seal. Hard to "copy"
i have made sure to tell the town staff that the stamp on my plans only covers the information on the plan at the time I stamped it.
alterations should not be accepted unless there is a fresh stamp.
last one I had: the builder called for an as-built (Certified Plot Plan) of the detached garage. i was not pleased and his fee was as much as if I had prepared the site plan as well as the certified. i was praying it was in violation of something: setback, wetlands, anything. fortunately for the builder, it was fine.
VH-
It's fraud.
See a lawyer ASAP
Vide:
Zambri v. Grammelhofer, 2009 CanLII 65373 (ON SC)
R
URL: http://canlii.ca/t/26s6c
Cheers
Derek
FWIW, I put a note on all of my plats, "This drawing represents conditions as they existed on June 13, 2013" (Whatever date is on the signature)
Similar here... All my surveys have a "Field Survey Completion Date" and I date my signature when I seal or stamp them.....
I sign and date my seal as well. The person who sketched on the plan, did not sketch on a new date, so seemingly, if one were looking at the plan for the 1st time, it would appear the sketched part was on the original.
-V
I guess I am missing the issue here. We have a survey plat, drawn completely in CAD, signed and sealed by a surveyor which is then hand sketched upon (with no indication by whom). How could anyone infer that the surveyor also did the hand sketching on the plat that he could have just as easily done in CAD. If I make a hand note on a plat (which is rarely ever), I would at the very least initial it and date it. More likely, I would update in CAD and note the revision date. I assume this is standard practice.
CA has this in our PLS Act, §8761.2:
>Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8761, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor who signs land surveying maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other surveying documents shall not be responsible for damage caused by subsequent changes to or uses of those maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other surveying documents, where the subsequent changes or uses, including changes or uses made by state or local governmental agencies, are not authorized or approved by the registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor who originally signed the maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other surveying documents, provided that the engineering or surveying service rendered by the civil engineer or land surveyor who signed the maps, plats, reports, descriptions, or other surveying documents was not also a proximate cause of the damage.
Does your state have something similar?
Regardless of that, I would schedule a meeting with the director of the approving agency and the official who personally signed off on it and read them the riot act about accepting obviously altered plans which do not have original seal & signature on them. That is simply negligent and there is no reasonable excuse for persons in positions of responsibility at the agency to not realize that, to have policies to reflect it, and to include it in their training of counter staff.
Those agencies exist to protect the public. If they ignore or negligently allow applicants to wantonly and brazenly violate the practice acts which are in place to also protect the public from negligent and incompetent practice, they are undermining their own purpose.
I agree, when I asked the building inspector why he accepted the plan he told me "it happens all the time." Pathetic.
We do quite a bit of work in town so I need to stay on good terms with this guy, but something has to be done. The client has asked me to hold off for now so he can deal with the fallout of the pool, but I'm going to be in touch with the BOR to see what the best way to approach this is.
Thanks to everyone for the input. To be continued...
-V
